JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the records. 2. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1998 (Krishna Pal and others vs. Raghunathi and others) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.3.1998 passed in Original Suit No. 396 of 1986 (Krishna Pal vs. Ram Dular). 3. As per given facts of the case, originally deceased-appellant Krishna Pal instituted a suit for possession and demolition arraying Ram Dular, Chote Lal and Shiv Poojan as defendants in respect of disputed plot no. 98 total area 3 biswa 18 dhoor (0-3-18) out of which disputed area shown in the plaint as 1 biswa 10 dhoor (0-1-10) situated at village and post Sagra, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh. As per the case of the appellants-plaintiffs after filing of commission report the suit was amended and disputed area as contained in the amended map was amended as 0-2-2.24 dhoor and relief of damages was also added due to alleged unauthorized action of cutting of trees by the defendant during the pendency of the suit. The respondents-defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statement. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and after framing of issues parties led their documentary evidence. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs. The appellants-plaintiffs feeling aggrieved filed appeal under Section 96 CPC which too was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The instant second appeal has been filed thereafter by the appellants-plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have grossly erred in coming to conclusion that the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was barred by time. It is submitted that the appellants-plaintiffs were in possession over the land in dispute till December, 1983 when the original plaintiff was dispossessed. The Trial Court has wrongly come to conclusion that the possession of defendants-respondents, namely, Ram Dular, Chote Lal and Shiv Poojan was found in the year 1964 and on the basis of the proceedings drawn against them, they were dispossessed, as such, the appellants-plaintiffs cannot claim to be in possession over the land in question till 1983. The Trial Court has wrongly come to conclusion that the possession of defendants-respondents, namely, Ram Dular, Chote Lal and Shiv Poojan was found in the year 1964 and on the basis of the proceedings drawn against them, they were dispossessed, as such, the appellants-plaintiffs cannot claim to be in possession over the land in question till 1983. It is submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly relied on the report of Supervisor Kanoongo which was filed in the summary proceedings initiated against the respondents. The said report could not have been relied in evidence as Supervisor Kanoongo who had submitted the said report was not examined by the Civil Court and the said report being filed in the summary proceedings cannot be said to be final. 5. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has grossly erred in holding the appellants-plaintiffs as trespasser. In the year 1981, the land in dispute was recorded as abadi on an application moved by the original plaintiff and, as such the land in question could not be treated to be banjar and on that basis the appellants-plaintiffs could not have been held to be trespasser. 6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellants and gone through the records. 8. During pendency of proceedings before the Courts below, appellant-Krishan Pal and respondent-Ram Dular and Chote Lal had died and they were substituted by their legal heirs. 9. The learned Trial Court while deciding the suit had framed certain issued. English translation of the same are as under: "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and is in possession over the land in dispute? 2. Whether the disputed construction is liable to be demolished and plaintiff is entitle to possession over that? 3. Whether land in suit is indefinite? 4. Whether land in suit is undervalued and the paid court fee is insufficient? 5. Whether the suit is time barred? 6. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? 7. Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel? 8. To which relief, the plaintiff is entitle to get? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 2000/- from the defendant due to curring of tree no. 6 as shown in the map 4ga2?." 10. 6. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? 7. Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel? 8. To which relief, the plaintiff is entitle to get? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 2000/- from the defendant due to curring of tree no. 6 as shown in the map 4ga2?." 10. The Trial Court has decided all the issues considering the evidence and the pleadings made by the parties. 11. Issues no. 6 and 7 were decided together. The Trial Court while deciding the said issues has come to conclusion that the suit is not barred by principle of res judicata and principle of estoppel. 12. The issues no. 1 and 2 were with respect to whether the plaintiff is the owner and is in possession over the land in dispute and whether the disputed construction is liable to be demolished. While deciding these issues the Trial Court has come to conclusion that it is evident that the plaintiff was not having possession over the land in dispute before coming into force of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Court has observed that on the basis of evidence on record it is evident that Ram Dular the defendant was in possession over the land in dispute in April 1964. In this regard, the concerning Revenue Inspector had submitted report to the concerning Tehsildar that Ram Dular is having unauthorized possession over the land in dispute which belongs to Gaon Sabha. He has also raised certain temporary structure and is doing the business of selling wood. In this regard notice was issued to Ram Dular and report was called from the Supervisor Kanoongo. On the basis of the report submitted by the Supervisor Kanoongo, which is marked as Ka-2, the order to dispossess Ram Dular defendant was issued. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that in the said proceedings defendant Ram Dular had filed his objection in which he had submitted that he is not unauthorized occupant over the land in dispute. The order for dispossession of defendant Ram Dular was passed by the Tehsildar which is dated 28.9.1964. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that in the said proceedings defendant Ram Dular had filed his objection in which he had submitted that he is not unauthorized occupant over the land in dispute. The order for dispossession of defendant Ram Dular was passed by the Tehsildar which is dated 28.9.1964. The Trial Court as such has concluded that it is evident from the aforesaid facts that the defendant was having possession over the land in question since 1964, as such it cannot be accepted that the appellants-plaintiffs were having possession over the land in question since 1983 as it is not supported with cogent evidences. The Court has opined that the plaintiff as well as defendant are trespassers over the land in question and they have no right or title over the land in question which in fact belongs to Gaon Sabha. The Court has opined that one trespasser has no right to dispossess another trespasser, as such, the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is time barred and the appellants-plaintiffs have no right or title over the land in dispute. 13. The lower appellate Court while deciding the appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has upheld the findings recorded by the Trial Court by giving its own reasons and considering the evidence available on record. The lower appellate Court has discussed each and every issue framed during the trial and has decided the appeal on the basis of contentions and arguments raised by the parties. 14. The lower appellate Court has discussed each and every issue framed during the trial and has decided the appeal on the basis of contentions and arguments raised by the parties. 14. So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellants that the Trial Court could not have relied on the report of the Supervisor Kanoongo while coming to conclusion that the possession over the land in dispute was found to be of defendant Ram Dular in the year 1964 as the said report was submitted in a summary proceeding and the Supervisor Kanoongo was not examined in the case filed by the plaintiff is concerned, suffice is to observe that the summary proceedings so drawn under Section 115-C U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act were on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and in the said proceedings the report of the Supervisor Kanoongo was called and after giving opportunity of objection to the defendant Ram Dular against whom the said proceedings were initiated and considering the objections so filed by Ram Dular the Revenue Court had come to conclusion that the defendant Ram Dular was totally unauthorized and shall be removed. The summary proceedings so drawn are also Court proceedings and are decided on the basis of evidence on record, as such it cannot be said that the report so submitted in the said Court proceedings cannot be admitted as evidence for the purpose of considering the question of possession over the land in dispute. It is also to be noted that the said summary proceedings had attained finality and were not challenged. The Trial Court on the basis of evidence on record as such has rightly come to conclusion that since the possession over the land in dispute was found to be of defendant in the year 1964, as such the claim of plaintiff that he had possession over the land in question since 1983 cannot be accepted as the same is not supported with any cogent evidence. As such, the contention so raised by the appellants has no force. 15. It is to be noted that in the proceedings drawn under Section 115-C U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against respondent-Ram Dular the land in question was held to be banjar land and, as such belongs to Gaon Sabha. As such, the contention so raised by the appellants has no force. 15. It is to be noted that in the proceedings drawn under Section 115-C U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against respondent-Ram Dular the land in question was held to be banjar land and, as such belongs to Gaon Sabha. The Trial Court as well as the appellate Court have come to conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to prove his right and title over the land in question. As such, even in case the said land was subsequently, at a latter stage, was entered as abadi in the revenue records, it does not entitle the appellant-plaintiff to hold his possession over the land in question. He would remain a trespasser over the said land as has been held by the Trial Court, as such, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings so recorded by the two Courts below. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants tries to submit that the lower appellate Court has decided the appeal without formulating the points of determination as such is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 17. Since this Court has observed above that the lower appellate Court has discussed in detail and decided the issues framed by the Trial Court by giving its own reasons and findings and after considering the arguments and submissions so made in this regard by the parties' counsel and decided the appeal point-wise, I am of the view that there was substantial compliance of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, as such, the contention of learned counsel for appellants has no force. 18. The findings so recorded by the two courts below are based on evidence on record and are well reasoned. 19. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings so recorded by the two Courts below which are based on evidence on record. There are concurrent findings of two courts below which do not require any interference by this Court. 20. The second appeal as such deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. The proposed substantial questions of law do not involved any legal issued. 21. The second appeal as such is dismissed at the admission stage.